Madrasdated High Court · 2007

2.The Director of Collegiate EducationGovernment of Tamil NaduD.P.I. Campus, Chennai 600 006.3.The National Council for Teacher Education rep. By its Member SecretaryHans Bhavan, New Delhi.4.The Regional DirectorNational Council for Teacher Education Southern Regional CommitteeFirst Floor, C.S.D. ComplexH.M.T. Township, Bangalore 31. ... Respondents in WP.24910/071. The State of Tamil Nadurep. By its Secretary to GovernmentHigher Education (G1) Department Fort St. GeorgeChennai 600 009.2. The Director of Collegiate EducationGovernment of Tamil NaduD.P.I. Campus, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents in WP.25177,25187 & 24159/07Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus andcertiorari as stated therein.For petitioner :: Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy,Sr.Counselin WP.24910/07 for Mr. R. SureshkumarFor petitioners .. Mr. K. Selvarajin WPs.24159,25177&25187 of 2007For respondents :: Mr. M. Sekar Spl. Govt. Pleader (Education) COMMON ORDER ( MADE BY P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)The common question involved in all these cases relate to thechallenge to G.O.Ms.No.214 High Education (G1) Department dated04.07.2007, filed by the Management Association of Self FinancingColleges of Education as well as some of the Self Financing Institutionsimparting instructions on B.Ed., course relating to three clauses in thesaid Government Order, viz., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i)Reservation of Seats;(ii)Selection and Counselling by Single Window System; and(iii)Government quota in the Colleges of Education.2. Presently there are 200 B.Ed., Colleges throughout the Stateof Tamil Nadu, which are granted recognition by the National Council forTeacher Education (in short, "NCTE"), Southern Regional Committee,Bangalore, and these institutions are imparting UG level and P.G. degreeprogramme, viz., B.Ed., and M.Ed., courses and they are fulfilling thenorms and standards as prescribed by the NCTE. 3. B.Ed., programme is one year course, wherein students afterhaving completed the respective UG degrees like B.A., B.Sc., etc. areadmitted based on the minimum eligibility marks as prescribed by theNCTE under its norms and standards. Each College is permitted to havethe annual intake of 100 students. The said Self Financing Collegesare not aided by the Government, but whose courses are recognised by theState Government as well as NCTE and are hitherto filling up the seatsevery academic year based on the marks obtained by the candidates in theUG degree programme and in some cases based on their PG degreeprogramme, from among the eligible applicants in accordance with inter-se merits strictly following the minimum eligibility criteria asprescribed by the NCTE.4. The State Government passed G.O.No.185 Higher Education (G1)Department dated 13.06.2005, giving certain guidelines to be followedfor admission to B.Ed., M.Ed., M.Phil. and Ph.D. (Education) courses forthe academic year 2005-2006. Accordingly, the selection was directed tobe made based on the entrance examination to be conducted by a NodalAgency, viz., Lady Wellington Institute of Advanced Studies inEducation, Chennai-5. Certain exhaustive procedures and guidelines havebeen given in the said Government Order in respect of conductingentrance examination, preparation of rank list etc, to be followed bythe said Nodal agency, for making admissions in the Government B.Ed.,Colleges as well as in the Government quota in respect of aided minorityand non-minority B.Ed., Colleges. It is the case of the petitionersthat entrance examination stated in the said Government Orderspecifically restricted to the admission in the Government Colleges andit is also stated that in respect of candidates seeking admission underthe Management quota in Government aided Colleges of Education and SelfFinancing Colleges of Education, there was no necessity for appearingfor the entrance examination. Therefore, hitherto all the SelfFinancing Colleges, which are unaided have been admitting 100% ofstudents based on the minimum eligibility criteria and depending uponthe inter se merit. Even the students who have written entranceexamination in the Government and Government Aided Colleges wereadmitted in these Self Financing Colleges not based on their performancein the entrance examination, but based on the degree qualifications andthe said admissions have been approved by the respective Universitiesand the students have also passed out the B.Ed., degree examination fromthese Colleges atleast in two sets.5. However, the first respondent - State Government has recentlycome out with the impugned G.O.(Ms)No.214 Higher Education (G1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department, dated 04.07.2007, prescribing new set of procedure to befollowed for B.Ed., Colleges, making it applicable to Self FinancingColleges regarding admission procedure. According to the said Order,the Government have stated that the number of B.Ed., Colleges which wereoriginally 22 in the year 2003-04 have been increased to 139 in 2006-07and due to the said increase, the Government felt that the presentprocedure for admission followed as per G.O.No.185 dated 13.06.2005results in hardship and therefore, the impugned Government Order came tobe issued by introducing the Government quota in the Government Aidedand Self Financing Colleges from the academic year 2007-08 andconsequently it has also provided for Single Window System in GovernmentAided and Self Financing Colleges of Education from the academic year2007-08. 6. The three conditions regarding the Government quota in theSelf Financing Colleges, prescription of single Window System and theapplication of reservation policy in respect of the Self FinancingColleges provided under the impugned Government Order are challenged bythe writ petitioners on various grounds including that the saidrestrictions affects the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) andArticle 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The imposition ofreservation policy of following 69% of reservation to the non-minoritySelf Financing Private B.Ed., Colleges are not permissible as per thelaw laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002(8) SCC 481). It is also the case of the petitioners that prescriptionof quota is also not permissible as per the decision of the SupremeCourt in P.A. Inamdar's case (2005 (6) SCC 537). It is the further caseof the petitioners that the degree in Education being a professionalcourse and admission is only to the candidates those who have completedthe basic UG Degree course, who come from different stream of educationwith different curriculum, subject pattern and assessment, evaluationetc. and therefore, there cannot be any fool proof method ofstandardisation of marks for the purpose of applying the Single WindowSystem.7. The Director of Collegiate Education has filed counteraffidavit on behalf of the State Government also. It is the case of therespondents that even in G.O.Ms.No.185 Higher Education (G1) Departmentdated 13.06.2005 it was stated in respect of unaided private selffinancing colleges, both minority and non-minority, the reservationapplies in respect of 50% of the seats and it was only the remaining50%, which was the Management quota, to which reservation was notinsisted upon and according to the respondents even in the impugnedGovernment Order also it is only 50% of the Government quota, which wasordered as it was in the previous Government Order. Therefore,according to the respondents it is not correct to state that all theseyears the self-financing colleges are permitted to admit studentsaccording to the merits of the candidates. According to therespondents, 50% of the seats in Government quota even in the self-financing colleges will be filled up in the Self-Financing Colleges byfollowing the Rule of Reservation and other 50% of the seats underGovernment quota will be filled by Single Window System by followingthe rule of reservation and merit from the academic year 2007-2008, inorder to make the admission fair and reasonable. 8. In respect of the institutions which have filed W.P.Nos.24159 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 25177 of 2007, it is the specific case of the first and secondrespondents that they have not applied to treat them as minorityinstitutions as required under G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education (J1)Department dated 17.06.1998 and they cannot presume themselves to beminority. It is also stated that pursuant to the advertisement,applications have been issued and the last date for submitting thefilled in application was 02.08.2007. The sale of applications havealready begun on 26.07.2007 and the filing of the petition is to stallthe admission proceedings. According to the first and secondrespondents the verdict of the Supreme Court relied upon by thepetitioner do not rule out the State government's right in the matter ofrule of reservation and conducting Counselling and it is not against thedecision of the First Division Bench of this Court. The reservationpolicy of 69% in the State of Tamil Nadu was brought into force bySection4 of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions andof Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993(Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994).9. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perusedthe entire records.10. Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner would fairly submit at the outset, as far as thereservation is concerned, the institutions which are the members of theAssociation of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24910 of 2007, are agreeableto follow reservation in 2007-2008 and therefore, there is no need todecide about the constitutional validity of the said portion of theimpugned Government Order relating to reservation.11. In respect of the quota, which the Government has fixedrelating to Self Financing Colleges, while he admits that some of theinstitutions have given in writing to the Government surrendering somepercentage of seats, nevertheless fixing of such quota in respect ofSelf Financing Colleges is not permissible in law, especially after the11 Judge Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme court in T.M.A. PaiFoundation case ( 2002 (8) SCC 481). He would also fairly submit in sofar as those institutions which have voluntarily submitted to theGovernment to surrender certain percentage of seats, certainly it isopen to them and the same cannot be prevented.12. In so far as the application of Single Window System isconcerned, he would vehemently submit that the eligibility for a personto join in B.Ed., course is any basic degree and the degree may beobtained in various subjects like, Science, Arts, Maths, etc. Even aPost Graduate and person having M.Phil., Ph.D. is eligible to joinB.Ed., course. In such circumstances, since the students are drawn fromvarious streams of education with various curriculum of subjects andmulti-farious concept of evaluation, they cannot be brought under onecategory so as to effectively implement the Single Window System.Making the Single Window System applicable, even to minorityinstitutions is totally against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.He would also submit that as per the Division Bench decision of thiscourt in W.A.No.876 of 2007 etc. batch dated 12.07.2007 relating toprofessional colleges, it was held that the centralised counselling ispossible only in the context of common entrance examination and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground reality of abolition of common entrance test there was noquestion of having a Single Window System. 13. On the other hand the learned Special Government Pleader(Education) would submit that majority of the self financing educationcolleges have given in writing surrendering the percentage of seats tothe Government and that voluntary agreement cannot be prevented.14. The Government has earlier issued G.O.Ms.No.185 dated13.06.2005, giving Guidelines and Procedures for admission to B.Ed., andM.Ed., courses for the year 2005-2006, appointing Lady WellingtonInstitute of Advanced Studies in Education as a Nodal Agency forconducting entrance examination for the year 2005-2006. While narratingthe procedures regarding reservation of seats for that year, it wasstated in the said Government Order that the Rule of Reservation willapply to all seats in Government Colleges, 50% of seats in AidedMinority Colleges and 90% of seats in Aided Non-minority Colleges. Itwas also stated that in cases of Un-aided Private Self FinancingColleges, both minority and non-minority, it will apply to 50% of theseats. That apart, the procedure for entrance examination marks and thequalifying examination marks, etc. were mentioned for preparation ofrank list. In the meantime, the Government has abolished the system ofCommon Entrance Examination by its statutory enactment (viz., Act 3 of2007).15. Under the present G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 04.07.2007, impugnedin these writ petitions, the Government has issued orders in respect ofadmission to B.Ed., course for the year 2007-2008 under Single WindowSystem. The Government appears to have taken the said decision on thebasis of number of Colleges of Education which were 22 in number in2003-2004 which has increased to 139 in 2006-2007 and many SelfFinancing B.Ed., Colleges have obtained permission directly from theNCTE during 2006-2007 and functioning under various Universities. Underthe guidelines issued in the form of Annexure to the said GovernmentOrder, the petitioners have chosen to challenge three clauses, which areas follows:AnnexureI.Subjects offered under B.Ed., Programme:.....II.Eligibility and Educational Qualification:....III.Reservation of seats:(1) Reservation of seats for candidates belongingto BC, MBC/DNC, SC and ST communities will be made as perthe rules and regulations of the government i.e., SC 18%,ST 1%, MBC/DNC 20%, BC 30%, OC 31%. Admission into everyCollege of Education shall be made strictly by followingthe rule of reservation as per law in force including forthe Management quota seats of Non-minority Aided Collegesand Non-minority Self-financing Colleges.(2) For the wards of Ex-Servicemen of Tamil Naduorigin, one seat will be reserved in each CollegeEducation. (3) 3% of the sanctioned strength will be reserved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for Physically and Visually challenged students in eachCollege of Education.IV.Selection and Admission Procedure:(a) Allocation of seats in the Colleges ofEducation......(i)....(ii).....(iii)Seats in Self-Financing Colleges of Education (50% ofseats both in Minority and non-minority Colleges asGovernment quota)b. Method of Application:...c. Last Date:....d. Selection and Counselling under Single Window System.1.The selection of candidates will be on the basis of themarks secured in the qualifying U.G./P.G. Degreeexamination.2.....3....4.....5....."16. As far as the III Clause in the Annexure to the impugnedGovernment Order relating to the Reservation of seats, as it is statedearlier, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have agreedto follow the rule relating to the reservation stipulated in theimpugned Government Order in the year 2007-2008 and therefore, there isno necessity to test the validity or otherwise of the said Clause inthese writ petitions.17. The next Clause which is impugned is in respect of Selectionand Admission Procedure, wherein it is stated in Clause IV (a)(iii) thatin respect of Self-Financing Colleges, whether they are minority or non-minority 50% of seats should be treated as Government quota. Whileholding that the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in respect ofadmission of students in Unnikrishnan J.P. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh(1993 (1) SCC 645) as not correct, the 11 Judge Bench of the SupremeCourt in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002 (8) SCC 481)clearly held that any system that will deprive the private unaidedinstitutions of the right of rational selection will be unreasonable andalso held that direction surrendering the total process of selection tothe State is unreasonable. The Supreme Court has observed in para 40and 41 as follows:"40. Any system of student selection would beunreasonable if it deprives the private unaided institutionof the right of rational selection, which it devised foritself, subject to the minimum qualification that may beprescribed and to some system of computing the equivalencebetween different kinds of qualifications, like a commonentrance test. Such a system of selection can involve bothwritten and oral tests for selection, based on principle offairness. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

41. Surrendering the total process of selection tothe State is unreasonable, as was sought to be done in UnniKrishnan scheme. Apart from the decision in St. Stephen'sCollege vs. University of Delhi (1992 (1) SCC 558) whichrecognised and upheld the right of a minority aidedinstitution to have a rational admission procedure of itsown, earlier Constitution Bench decisions of this Courthave, in effect, upheld such a right of an institutiondevising a rational manner of selection and admittingstudents. "(Emphasis supplied)18. Again, while holding that the private educationalinstitutions have their right to grant admission, however with nowhimsical or extraneous reasons, the Supreme Court further observed inpara 65 as follows:“The reputation of an educational institution isestablished by the quality of its faculty andstudents, and the educational and other facilitiesthat the college has to offer. The privateeducational institutions have a personality of theirown, and in order to maintain their atmosphere andtraditions, it is but necessary that they must havethe right to choose and select the students who canbe admitted to their courses of studies. It is forthis reason that in St. Stephen’s College case thisCourt upheld the scheme whereby a cut-off percentagewas fixed for admission, after which the studentswere interviewed and thereafter selected. While aneducational institution cannot grant admission onits whims and fancies, and must follow someidentifiable or reasonable methodology of admittingthe students, any scheme, rule or regulation thatdoes not give the institution the right to rejectcandidates who might otherwise be qualifiedaccording to, say, their performance in an entrancetest, would be an unreasonable restriction underArticle 19(6), though appropriateguidelines/modalities can be prescribed for holdingthe entrance test in a fair manner. Even whenstudents are required to be selected on the basis ofmerit, the ultimate decision to grant admission tothe students who have otherwise qualified for thegrant of admission must be left with the educationalinstitution concerned. However, when the institutionrejects such students, such rejection must not bewhimsical or for extraneous reasons." (Emphasis supplied)19. While considering the validity or otherwise of quota ofseats, in the subsequent judgement, viz., in P.A. Inamdar and others vs.State of Maharastra and others (2004 (8) SCC 139), the Supreme Court hasobserved not only about the seat sharing, but also reservation policy asfollows:" 124. So far as appropriation of quota by the State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and enforcement of its reservation policy isconcerned, we do not see much of a differencebetween non-minority and minority unaidededucational institutions. We find great force in thesubmission made on behalf of the petitioners thatthe States have no power to insist on seat-sharingin unaided private professional educationalinstitutions by fixing a quota of seats between themanagement and the State. The State cannot insist onprivate educational institutions which receive noaid from the State to implement the State’s policyon reservation for granting admission on lesserpercentage of marks i.e. on any criterion exceptmerit. 125. As per our understanding, neither in thejudgment of Pai Foundation nor in the ConstitutionBench decision in Kerala Education Bill which wasapproved by Pai Foundation is there anything whichwould allow the State to regulate or controladmissions in the unaided professional educationalinstitutions so as to compel them to give up a shareof the available seats to the candidates chosen bythe State, as if it was filling the seats availableto be filled up at its discretion in such privateinstitutions. This would amount to nationalisationof seats which has been specifically disapproved inPai Foundation. Such imposition of quota of Stateseats or enforcing reservation policy of the Stateon available seats in unaided professionalinstitutions are acts constituting seriousencroachment on the right and autonomy of privateprofessional educational institutions. Suchappropriation of seats can also not be held to be aregulatory measure in the interest of the minoritywithin the meaning of Article 30(1) or a reasonablerestriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) ofthe Constitution. Merely because the resources ofthe State in providing professional education arelimited, private educational institutions, whichintend to provide better professional education,cannot be forced by the State to make admissionsavailable on the basis of reservation policy to lessmeritorious candidates. Unaided institutions, asthey are not deriving any aid from State funds, canhave their own admissions if fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit. 126. The observations in para. 68 of the majorityopinion in Pai Foundation on which the learnedcounsel for the parties have been much at variancein their submissions, according to us, are not to beread disjointly from other parts of the mainjudgment. A few observations contained in certainparagraphs of the judgment in Pai Foundation if https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ read in isolation, appear conflicting orinconsistent with each other. But if theobservations made and the conclusions derived areread as a whole, the judgment nowhere lays down thatunaided private educational institutions ofminorities and non-minorities can be forced tosubmit to seat-sharing and reservation policy of theState. Reading relevant parts of the judgment onwhich learned counsel have made comments andcounter-comments and reading the whole judgment (inthe light of previous judgments of this Court, whichhave been approved in Pai Foundation in ourconsidered opinion, observations in para 68 merelypermit unaided private institutions to maintainmerit as the criterion of admission by voluntarilyagreeing for seat-sharing with the State or adoptingselection based on common entrance test of theState. There are also observations saying that theymay frame their own policy to give freeships andscholarships to the needy and poor students or adopta policy in line with the reservation policy of theState to cater to the educational needs of theweaker and poorer sections of the society. 127. Nowhere in Pai Foundation either in themajority or in the minority opinion, have we foundany justification for imposing seat-sharing quota bythe State on unaided private professionaleducational institutions and reservation policy ofthe State or State quota seats or management seats. 128. We make it clear that the observations in PaiFoundation in para 68 and other paragraphsmentioning fixation of percentage of quota are to beread and understood as possible consensualarrangements which can be reached between unaidedprivate professional institutions and the State." (Emphasis Supplied)Therefore, it is clear that in respect of the unaided Colleges ofEducation whether minority or non-minority, they cannot be compelled tosurrender any number of seats to the Government. In view of the same,we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said Clause IV(a)(iii) of the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 04.07.2007, whichcompels the Self Financing Colleges of Education to surrender 50% oftheir seats as a Government quota is clearly ultra vires. However, wemake it clear that in respect of the Educational Colleges, which by wayof agreement have prepared to surrender any number of seats to theGovernment, the same shall not be prevented by this judgement.20. The next Clause impugned in the said Government Orderrelates to the imposition of Single Window System. As it is pointed outby the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, for admission to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ B.Ed., course, students are drawn from various streams of studies.Since the basic requirement for admission is degree, any person who getsdegree in any subject is eligible. With the result, students fromB.Sc., B.A., or B.Com., and among them students who have chosen varioussubjects like Maths, Physics, Chemistry, History, Economic, CorporateCourses, etc. can compete for admission to B.Ed., course. In addition,even persons with Post Graduate degrees and persons with M.Phil. areeligible to compete for admission to B.Ed. In view of the said factsthe students are drawn from various streams of studies, whose method ofexamination and evaluation of merit are totally different. Moreover,the student who is coming from Science faculty, Maths faculty may beable to secure more marks. On the other hand, a student from History orEconomics may not be able to secure such equal marks. In suchcircumstances, the process of normalisation is absolutely impossible byfollowing the marks in the qualifying examination. In order to make theadmission on Single Window System, viz., based on the marks obtained inthe qualifying examination, the Supreme Court has held in P.A. Inamdar'scase (cited supra), that holding of entrance test followed bycentralised counselling or single window does not cause any dent in theminority Unaided Educational Institutions to admit students of theirchoice. But, in the present context, when the State Government hasabolished the common entrance examination system, there is absolutely nopossibility to arrive at a proper conclusion in the process of selectionbased on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. In thisregard, it is relevant that the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundationcase (cited supra) has held that, sufficient discretion must be given tothe Unaided-Professional Institutions, however, based on merit. Thefollowing paragraphs in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case are relevant.59. Merit is usually determined, for admission toprofessional and higher education colleges, byeither the marks that the student obtains at thequalifying examination or school-leaving certificatestage followed by the interview, or by a commonentrance test conducted by the institution, or inthe case of professional colleges, by governmentagencies. 65. ... While an educational institution cannotgrant admission on its whims and fancies, and mustfollow some identifiable or reasonable methodologyof admitting the students, any scheme, rule orregulation that does not give the institution theright to reject candidates who might otherwise bequalified according to, say, their performance in anentrance test, would be an unreasonable restrictionunder Article 19(6), though appropriateguidelines/modalities can be prescribed for holdingthe entrance test in a fair manner …….."(emphasis supplied)21. The rulings and observations of the Apex Court in T.M.A. PaiFoundation and P.A. Inamdar cases clearly show that centralisedcounselling can be recommended in the context of the Common Entrance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Test. In the absence of any entrance test, there is no possibility foradmitting the students on equitable basis, since the students are drawnfrom various branches and faculties. Therefore, it is clear that inrespect of the Unaided Educational Colleges it must be left to theColleges to decide in admitting the students by merit evaluatingreasonable method and procedure of admission based on the triple test ofmerit, transparency and non-exploitative. In view of the above saidfacts, Clause IV (d) in so far as it relates to the Unaided EducationalColleges is set aside. In view of the same, the writ petitions standallowed in the following terms.(i)Clause IV(a)(iii) of the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.214 dated04.07.2007 in respect of allocation of seats to theGovernment from the Colleges of Education; and Clause IV(d) relating to the selection by Single Window System inso far as they relate to the Unaided Colleges ofEducation both minority and non-minority are set aside.It is also made clear that in cases of the UnaidedPrivate Educational Colleges, who desire to surrender theseats based on the agreement, this judgement shall notstand in its way.(ii)There must be a right on the part of the Government aswell as the Special Committee constituted by theGovernment to have a check.(iii)It is also made clear that since in these writpetitions the point relating to reservation is notinsisted by the petitioners, since the petitioners arewilling to follow the reservation in admission for theyear 2007-2008, the same is not decided and the issue isleft open. It is made clear that in any event ifsufficient number of candidates are not available underthe reserved category, it is open to the Private UnaidedEducational Colleges to fill up the said seats as opencategory.22. In order to ensure the fairness in admission in the Collegesof Education run under the Self Finance pattern, we issue the followingdirections:(i)The Unaided Educational Colleges on receipt of theapplications from the candidates shall arrange theapplications in accordance with marks obtained by each ofthe candidates on merit and publish the same in the website;(ii)Such list of applications received and arranged basedon mark and merit shall be send by each of the UnaidedEducational Colleges to the Government as well as theAdmission Committee constituted by the Government forProfessional Colleges.(iii)After intimation of the above said particulars, theUnaided Private Educational Institutions shall commencethe process of selection and complete the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv)After selection process is completed, the UnaidedPrivate Colleges shall send the list of selectedcandidates along with the merit list to the Government aswell as to the Admission Committee constituted by theGovernment. (v)It is open to the Government to take appropriate actionagainst such of the Unaided Private Educational Colleges,who have not followed the selection process in accordancewith merit.With the above directions, the writ petitions stand allowed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.khSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to GovernmentState of Tamil NaduHigher Education Department Fort St. George,Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Collegiate EducationGovernment of Tamil NaduD.P.I. Campus, Chennai 600 006.3.The National Council for Teacher Education rep. By its Member SecretaryHans Bhavan, New Delhi.4.The Regional DirectorNational Council for Teacher Education Southern Regional Committee First Floor, C.S.D. Complex H.M.T. Township, Bangalore 31.5.The Secretary to Government, Higher Education (G1)Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai-9.+3 ccs to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate Sr.No.51404.+2 ccs to Mr.r.Suresh Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.51419.+1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.51288.KM(CO)dcp/22.8 W.P.Nos.24910, 25177, 25187 & 24159 of 2007